1 Center for American Progress | Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin
Federal Coal Leasing
in the Powder River Basin A Bad Deal for Taxpayers By Nidhi Thakar and Michael Madowitz July 29, 2014 Te Powder River Basin, stretching across southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming, produces more coal than any other region in the United States. It is also home to the single-richest coal reserves in the country, containing an estimated 162 billion short tons of coal that are recoverable under the U.S. Geological Surveys projections for future min- ing technology and coal prices. 1 * By and large, the vast majority of this coal belongs to U.S. taxpayers and is managed on their behalf by the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. Approximately 40 percent of all coal produced in the United States comes from BLM-managed lands, with a staggering 87 percent of it mined in the Powder River Basin. 2
While the open-pit mines that stretch across the Powder River Basin have long been a source of cheap fuel, they are also one of the nations largest sources of carbon pollution. In fact, 13 percent of all U.S. fossil-fuel emissions stem from Powder River Basin coal, which is burned in more than 200 power plants across 35 states. 3 Tis is equivalent to the annual emissions of 70 percent of all cars registered in the United States, or 1.5 times the annual emissions of Saudi Arabia. 4 In fact, the Powder River Basin alone ranks glob- ally as the seventh-largest emiter of carbon pollution annually, trailing six countries China, the rest of the United States, India, Russia, Japan, and Germany. 5
While it is evident that Powder River Basin coal is a major contributor to U.S. climate change and carbon pollution, what is less apparent are the real economic and social costs of burning this coaland the true cost borne by U.S. taxpayers, which has long been overlooked by policymakers. 2 Center for American Progress | Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin Undervaluing Powder River Basin coal For decades, the BLM has run a fundamentally noncompetitive leasing program, which has been a boon to industry. Since 1990, 96 of the 107 coal-lease sales held by the BLM have had only one bidder, despite a clear mandate under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 that federal coal leases be ofered competitively. (see Figure 1) 6
Tis means that almost 90 percent of all federal coal-lease sales over the past 25 years have been noncompetitive.** Coal companies that operate in the Powder River Basin beneft from the BLMs coal program because, in large measure, they have dictated the terms of federal coal leas- ing for decades. Although the BLM is obligated to hold competitive lease sales and conduct rigorous environmental reviews in coal-producing regions, the BLM in 1990 ofcially decertifed the Powder River Basin as a historic coal production region. 7
Decertifcation has efectively given coal companies control over the federal leasing pro- cess, allowing them to select which tracts to lease, rather than having to follow a regional leasing plan where the secretary of the interior controls the processas was envisioned by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. 8 Tis long-overlooked policy exemption, made by former President George H.W. Bushs secretary of the interior, Manuel Lujn Jr., has resulted in diminished competition, reduced environmental review of proposed coal leases, and lax oversight. Consequently, Powder River Basin coal is signifcantly undervalued and sells at a frac- tion of the cost of coal produced in other regions of the United States. Coal produced in the Appalachian region, for example, sells for $63 per short ton, but Powder River Basin coal sells for a shockingly low $13 per short ton$50 less per short ton. (see Figure 2) Even when accounting for the higher energy content of Appalachian coal, Powder River Basin coal is still drastically cheaper, costing just $0.74 per million British thermal units, or BTUs, versus $2.46 per million BTUs for Appalachian coal. (see Figure 2) FIGURE 1 Anti-competitive federal coal leasing practices since 1990 The number of federal coal tracts leased from 1990 to 2012, sorted by number of bidders Coal contracts leased with a single bidder Coal contracts leased with two bidders Coal contracts leased with at least three bidders Source: U.S. Government Accountability Ofce, "Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information" (2013), p. 17, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659801.pdf. 96 10 1 3 Center for American Progress | Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin Te domestic price of Powder River Basin coal is even more startling when viewed in the context of the global market. Internationally, Power River Basin coal sells for fve times more than it does domestically. In China, for example, Powder River Basin coal fetches $69 per short ton. 9 And demand for domestic coal on the global market contin- ues to rise. 10 In 2012 alone, the United States exported more than 125 million short tons of domestic coal. 11 Moreover, the demand for exports continues to grow, with U.S. coal companies that operate in the Powder River Basin, such as Arch Coal, Inc., pursuing ports in Oregon and Washington to export as much as 150 million short tons of coal per year to Asia. 12
Te noncompetitive practices of the BLM coal-leasing program and the agencys undervaluation of Powder River Basin coal are well documented. In 2013, the Government Accountability Ofce, or GAO, and the U.S. Department of the Interiors Ofce of Inspector General issued separate reports in which they each found major defciencies in the coal-leasing program and concluded that it lacks rigor and over- sight. 13 In particular, both noted that the BLM employs a deeply fawed process to assess the fair market value of federal coal. Te artifcially low market price of Powder River Basin coal costs U.S. taxpayers in several ways. Although the GAO and the Ofce of Inspector General refrained from assessing the full loss to taxpayers from the noncompetitive nature of BLMs coal-leasing program, a third-party review estimated that over the past 30 years, the governments undervalua- tion of coal may have cost taxpayers upward of $30 billion in lost revenue. 14 Whats more, taxpayers are missing out on royalty payments that would accrue if the coal were sold at a higher price on the market. A short ton of coal sold at $60 per short ton, for example, provides a 12.5 percent royalty payment of $7.50 per short ton for taxpayers. However, a short ton of coal sold at $13 per short ton returns a 12.5 percent royalty payment of just $1.63 per short ton. With hundreds of millions of tons of federal coal sold annually from the Powder River Basin, these losses to American taxpayers add up quickly. Powder River Basin Appalachian Powder River Basin Appalachian FIGURE 2 Cost comparison of Powder River Basin and Appalachian coal Coal spot prices measured in dollars per short ton, 2014 Coal spot prices measured in dollars per million British thermal units, or BTU, 2014
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Average weekly coal commodity spot prices," available at http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/ (last accessed July 2014). Source: Authors calculations based on U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Average weekly coal commodity spot prices," available at http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/ (last accessed July 2014). $13 $0.74 $63 $2.52 4 Center for American Progress | Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin Social cost of carbon from burning Powder River Basin coal Te true cost of Powder River Basin coal is much more than the billions of dollars in lost revenue that the federal government fails to collect on behalf of U.S. taxpayers; that is only half the story. Te cost to society for mining and burning Powder River Basin coalits social costis the other half. Te social cost of carbon, as defned in the 2013 Economic Report of the President, is the monetized estimate of damage caused by emiting an additional ton of carbon dioxide in one year. 15 Damage can include immedi- ate and future impacts to health, property, agriculture, the value of ecosystem services, and other welfare costs of climate change. Burning coal emits signifcant pollutants with signifcant social costprincipally carbon pollution, smog-forming pollutants, and heavy metals. Tese pollutants degrade our air and our health and accelerate climate change, adversely afecting the environment now and well into the future. Because the social cost of carbon for extracting and combust- ing coal captures these various efects, not to mention the added climate efects, the true price of Powder River Basin coal is much higher than the revenue generated from its sale. By our estimates, based on just carbon pollution, the social cost of Powder River Basin coal, no mater where it is burned, is currently $62 per short ton4.5 times the current domestic market price for this coal. Tis estimate will rise to more than $70 per short ton by 2020. 16 Including other social and health costs, as well as foregone tax revenue, would lead to a much higher fgure. Health costs to society refect premature deaths, lost days of work, and medical treat- ment costs. Tese costs to society fall heavily on people closest to where coal is burned and can vary based on the technology installed at a power plant, population density near plants, and a variety of other factors. It is noteworthy that the applicability of the social cost of carbon to Powder River Basin coal is not merely speculative. Te BLM and federal courts have determined that the costs of carbon emissions from the mining and combustion of coal result in impacts that must be accounted for as the social cost of carbon. 17 All in all, depressed market valuations, an anti-competitive leasing program, low royalty rates that have not changed in decades, and unaccounted for social and environmental costs all mean that U.S. taxpayers are paying heavily to sell, mine, and burn Powder River Basin coal. When the social cost of carbon for burning this coal at $62 per short ton is taken into account, the federal government is not only foregoing billions of dollars in lost revenue but is also selling publicly owned coal at a net social loss of at least $49 per short ton. (see Figure 3) 5 Center for American Progress | Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin Even using BLMs lower estimate of 388 million tons of federal coal sold from the Powder River Basin in 2012, the total net social loss that year was more than $19 billion dollars. 18 Tese losses will continue to reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars if Powder River Basin coal remains so highly undervalued and production continues at similar levels to today. Te botom line is that the government is selling federal coal at a huge loss, subsidiz- ing an industry to produce carbon pollution, and seemingly has no meaningful plan to change course. In its current form, the federal coal-leasing program in the Powder River Basin isfrom top to botoma bad deal for U.S. taxpayers. Nidhi Takar is Deputy Director of the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. Michael Madowitz is an Economist at the Center. Nathan Joo, an intern at the Center, also contributed to this column. * Correction, July 29, 2014: Tis issue brief has been corrected to clarify under what circum- stances coal in the Powder River Basin is recoverable. ** Correction, July 30, 2014: Tis issue brief has been corrected to refect that the referenced coal sales are national. Market price Social cost of carbon Current net social benet from sale of Powder River Basin coal* $13 $62 FIGURE 3 The true costs of Powder River Basin coal Dollars per short ton
*Estimate excludes social cost of noncarbon pollution and lost revenue and royalties due to underpricing of Powder River Basin coal. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Average weekly coal commodity spot prices," available at http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_ markets/ (last accessed July 2014); Author's calculations based on Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, "Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866" (2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fles/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf. -$49 6 Center for American Progress | Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin Endnotes 1 U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Estimates 162 Billion Short Tons of Recoverable Coal in the Powder River Basin, Press release, February 26, 2013, available at http://www.usgs. gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3518&from=rss#.U8gdW- CTD8dV. 2 Authors calculations are based on 2012 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interiors Ofce of Natural Resources Revenue. See U.S. Energy Information Administration, Coal Data Browser, available at http://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/browser/ (last accessed July 2014); Ofce of Natural Resources Rev- enue, Statistical Information, available at http://statistics. onrr.gov/ReportTool.aspx (last accessed July 2014). 3 WildEarth Guardians, The Powder River Basin A Root Contributor to Global Warming, avail- able at http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/ PageServer?pagename=priorities_climate_energy_coal_ powder_river_global_warming#.U8ghEiTD8dU (last accessed July 2014). 4 Authors calculations using data from the World Bank, the Environmental Protection Agencys Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. See World Bank, Data: CO2 emissions (kt), avail- able at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E. KT/countries?order=wbapi_data_value_2010+wbapi_data_ value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc (last accessed July 2014); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, available at http://www.epa. gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results (last accessed July 2014); Research and Innovative Technol- ogy Administration, Table 1-11: Number of U.S. Aircraft, Ve- hicles, Vessels, and Other Conveyances, available at http:// www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/fles/publica- tions/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11. html (last accessed July 2014). 5 Authors calculations are based on data from the World Bank. See World Bank, Data: CO2 emissions (kt). 6 U.S. Government Accountability Ofce, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information (2013); Bureau of Land Management, Coal Operations, available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non- energy.print.html (last accessed July 2014). 7 Juliet Eilperin, Powder River Basin Coal Leasing Prompts IG, GAO reviews, The Washington Post, June 24, 2012, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/powder-river-basin-coal-leasing-prompts-ig-gao- reviews/2012/06/24/gJQA7xSR0V_story.html. 8 Bureau of Land Management, Powder River Basin Coal: History of the Coal Program, available at http://www.blm. gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/ history.print.html (last accessed July 2014). 9 Thomas Michael Power and Donovan S. Power, The Impact of Powder River Basin Coal Exports on Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions(San Francisco, CA: Energy Foundation, 2013). 10 U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. coal exports on record pace in 2012, fueled by steam coal growth, October 23, 2012, available at http://www.eia.gov/today- inenergy/detail.cfm?id=8490. 11 Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Distribution Report (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012). 12 Jessica Goad, Plans for One Coal Export Terminal in Oregon Dropped, Four Others Still Under Consideration, Climate Progress, April 9, 2013, available at http://thinkprogress.org/ climate/2013/04/09/1839541/plans-for-one-coal-export- terminal-in-oregon-dropped-four-others-still-under-consid- eration/. 13 U.S. Government Accountability Ofce, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information; Ofce of Inspector General, Coal Management Program, U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013). 14 Tom Sanzillo, The Great Giveaway: An Analysis of the Costly Failure of Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin (Washington: Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2012). 15 Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the Presi- dent (Executive Ofce of the President, 2013), p. 188. 16 This fgure is derived by considering the amount of carbon contained in Powder River Basin coal in conjunction with the estimated social cost of carbon from the Ofce and Management and Budgets analysis, which was conducted in consultation with leading academic modelers. The social cost of carbon increases over time because carbon pollution lingers in the atmosphere for many years. See U.S. Energy Information Administration, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefcients, February 14, 2013, available at http://www. eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm; Ofce of Management and Budget, Technical Support Document: - Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866 - (Executive Ofce of the President, 2013), available at http://www. whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fles/omb/assets/inforeg/ technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator- impact-analysis.pdf. 17 Nidhi Thakar, Court Blocks Coal Mine Expansion For Not Counting The Costs Of Carbon Pollution, Climate Progress, June 30, 2014, available at http://thinkprogress.org/ climate/2014/06/30/3454764/court-blocks-arch-mine-coal- expansion/. 18 Bureau of Land Management, Powder River Basin Coal Production, available at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/pro- grams/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/production.html (last accessed July 2014). The social cost of Powder River Basin coal for 2012 is based on the authors calculations.